Global Terrorism is there a solution ?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Amid all this tragedy, it would appear that in the past the US has been as guilty as many others in funding freedom fighters/terrorists.

as guilty ? more guilty I think, the US government takes a hand in events all over the world... look at their history...


GREECE 1947-49
Supports and directs extreme right in civil war.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54
CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950
Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.

KOREAN WAR 1950-53
Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.

IRAN 1953
CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah.

GUATEMALA 1954
CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed.

LEBANON 1958
US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.

VIETNAM WAR 1960-75
Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed.

CUBA 1961
CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion.

LAOS 1962
Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.

PANAMA 1964
Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.

INDONESIA 1965
Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66
Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.

GUATEMALA 1966-67
Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.

CAMBODIA 1969-75
War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.

OMAN 1970
US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."

LAOS 1971-73
US directs South Vietnamese invasion.

CHILE 1973
CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed.

ANGOLA 1976-92
CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92
Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.

NICARAGUA 1981-90
US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines.

LEBANON 1982-84
Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.

HONDURAS 1983-89
Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.

GRENADA 1983-84
US troops topple pro-Cuban government.

LIBYA 1986
Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links.

BOLIVIA 1986
Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.

IRAN 1987-88
Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.

PHILIPPINES 1989
Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.

PANAMA 1989-90
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed.

GULF WAR 1990-
Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.

SOMALIA 1992-94
US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94
US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95
Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.

HAITI 1994-96
Troops restore elected leftist president to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995
American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.

SUDAN 1998
Pharmaceutical factory with terrorist links bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

AFGHANISTAN 1998
Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999
US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo.

COLOMBIA 2000
Special Forces train anti-narcotics and anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.

MACEDONIA 2001
US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.

AFGHANISTAN 2001
In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces attempt ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden

[Gadget]

Last year (a couple of years ago?) there was an article on the news that made me shed a tear more than the incessant stream of blooded corpses that parade across our papers and TV's:
destruction of cliffside sculptures
These have stood for hundreds of years, taken a lifetime of work for gangs of sculptors and in the blink of an eye are lost to the world forever. This fills my soul with despair.

I don't know if over-exposure has de-sensitised me, but the destruction of something so vast where so much effort has gone into it; knowing there will never be another in the universe. This goes deeper for me. The human may die, they may endure apauling circumstances, they may have awfull things done to them - but in 100 years, all that will be left of them is the mark they make on the world...for a few, they will not have a chance to make much of a mark. But with publicity and the global eye, the mark is spread far and wide.

Now look at the sculptures again; these people left a mark on the world that has endured for thousands of years. And now it's being eliminated.

[cerocmetro]

Probably the country with the most experience of dealing with terrorism is Israel, and they haven't learned how to solve it - everything they are now doing (and it's all understandable from their perspective) is simply dealing with the consequences, not addressing the root causes.

You have interestingly enough gone to a part of the world which holds the key to many of the answers (IMO). The root causes IMO are no more clear than in the Middle east. It is where Western Culture meets eastern. Tell someone in the East to follow orders laid down by their government blindly, or their religious leaders. The response is in the majority of the time, let me think about what is being asked of me. In Eastern cultures, the response would be OK the majority of the time. Look at Indonseia, Singapore Arab Nations, the people want to be led almost dictated to. I am not even saying this is bad, Singapore for example is a wonderful country to live in, safe, clean in fact one of the best places to live in the world. Yet the people are dictated to and you could face prison for dropping chewing gum in the Street. However have a leader/dictator whose ideas are different and the masses still follow blindly, then a different result comes out. Who are we however to say our culture is right?

the Middle East is where one culture meets the other. Perhaps consider it this way even though it may not be true, They say the Westerners think with the right side of he Brain and those from the East the left. I believe that the middle East is not where East meets West but where Right Meets Left. Both are correct, justified, in their beliefs. So lieth the problem.

Eventually the only viable future for a safe society is the spread of wealth to the dispossessed, self-determination to those who want it, and an acceptance by everyone (and every religious and political leader) that discussion and non-violent persuasion is preferable to force. I guess this would have to be taught from birth and in schools, and as it's contrary to human nature and the economic/religious forces against it are so huge, it won't happen in my lifetime, and probably never will.

The only flaw with this of course is the is your opinion. Ask a family who have nothing if they want money or food? Tell them the food will come just look into the future and see what reply you get.

The other big difference is we base our lives around economic factors whilst religious sect do not. Actually thinking about it when England were fanatical Christian didn't we go round killing people in the name of Christ. (The Crusades). We even brag about it. Didn't we invent concentration camps? How was it we were the only Country to negotiate with terrorists in 1970 in Jordan at the first HiJacking. It could be argued that as we did negotiate we opened the way for every terrorist attack since?

As I said before, the answer lies in the future and it will probably come in the way of an Ice Age or a meteor hitting the planet

[cerocmetro]

I must apologise for what I have said above.

I seem to have really offended someone who felt the need to give me neg reps. Apparantly my grammar was aweful.

[Andy McGregor]

Apparantly my grammar was aweful.

Couldn't have been your spelling?

[cerocmetro]

Couldn't have been your spelling?

Doh!

[Dreadful Scathe]

I think that this is well wide of the mark (but I'm not a terrorist, so it might be spot on):
The reason that these acts are carried out against non-involved countries people is to either get them involved, or draw attention to their plight.

non-involved countries ? no terrorist would ever attack a non-involved country surely! what would be the point? Usually they attack a country that they think is either the direct cause of their problems, or a country that is supportive of that "guilty" country(s). Or , possibly, attacks in their own country at people representing another country, belief system, whatever. I doubt that the terrorists attack anyone that they truly believe is "not involved". Am I wrong ?

If the terrorists committed these acts against their own people or their own government, then they are freedom fighters, gorillas, rebels,... whatever. But if they target a country that is not directly involved in the conflict; then they are terrorists. (a line I think that press have blurred into obscurity)

The IRA are freedom fighters, rebels ? I suppose you're right but thats entirely a point of view. I always thought it was ironic that the Mel Gibson film of a few years ago "The Patriot" was called that when at that time there was no country to be patriotic for, they were freedom fighters from their point of view trying to become a country and terrorists from the British point of view. Its all in the label and who's writing it. The most succinct definition of terrorism would probably be "the calculated use of violence to achieve ideological goals", its a broad statement use it with care .

By committing acts that are broadcast all across the world, they are succeeding in drawing attention to their cause; people wonder "what is so bad that drives people to this?" News reporters go in and find out the background to the story. The governments involved are lent on to resolve the issues within their own borders. If this press coverage was not there, then less 'lean' would be able to be applied. The terrorists would focus their efforts on targets closer to home - those they see as responsible for their situation.

Whilst people may well "wonder what is so bad that drives people to this" they may also think "NOTHING justifys this" at the same time...I certainly do...sending suicide bombers into schools and onto school buses ? is this a valid method of making a statement ? How many people in this country would agree with that ? As for the press coverage, all that does is make the general populace aware of whats going on quicker, assuming it is reported. Many stories are NOT reported and when they are, they are reported with a particular bias depending on who is doing the reporting. The governments do the same 'leaning' on other governments as they always did despite the public media. I would say it is NOT true that the media effects governmental policy but it is certainly true the other way round! In fact because we have so much media reporting it is far to easy to assume that it is all true, and many people do.

I think that an act of terrorism without the media coverage would probably be handled discreetly with some special forces troops - end of terrorists, end of demands and less people likelihood of others taking similar action.

Im sure that goes on already. Im also sure that terrorists or possible terrorists are not put off by this. If their grievance is ever addressed then maybe others will not take "similar action", otherwise it will carry on until you kill everyone who has this grievance....which would be an entire population in some cases. The romans used to do that - if someone was against you, you killed them and their whole family - it worked quite well in a lot of cases.

Adam's solution of throwing money at a problem - does it work?

If you use that money to kill everyone who doesn't like you...then yes As soon as they look at you funny, shoot them Seriously though, money will make a difference if you do nice unselfish things with it - build schools, hospitals etc.. but unless you can "buy out" a country or certain peoples particular grievance (unlikely) money will do very little.

[Gadget]

non-involved countries ? no terrorist would ever attack a non-involved country surely! what would be the point?

well, how about publicity?
Most attacks are on embassys because they are the closest "Forigners" that can be found. Unless people are abducted, or hotels bombed - If it's not a "Look at me!" action, then isn't it a "Geddorf my land!" action. Are the contries targeted actually involved? Or just so happen to be "forign"?

Its all in the label and who's writing it. The most succinct definition of terrorism would probably be "the calculated use of violence to achieve ideological goals", its a broad statement use it with care .

The media write the label. The word "Terrorist" is a headline grabber - why say "killed" when you can say "murdered"? why say "shot" when you can say "executed"?
How long before organised criminals get tagged with the same "terrorist" line? Do the goals of the act actually matter? Was the USA (& UK & EU...) wanting to oust bin-lid an "ideological goal"? Did they use violence? Was it calculated? Is Blair as much a terrorist leader?

Whilst people may well "wonder what is so bad that drives people to this" they may also think "NOTHING justifys this" at the same time...I certainly do...sending suicide bombers into schools and onto school buses ? is this a valid method of making a statement ?

It's making a statement. The "validity" of the method? It is a valid method if the statement was heard - and the media guaranteed that.
Crashing planes into buildings. Blowing up schools and hospitals. Blowing up busses and hottels. Check-points, embassys, cars. Opening up with automatic gunfire in public places. Shooting someone. Beating them to death. Holding hostages. Hospitalising people. Throwing stones at militants. Shouting abuse. Writing "forbidden" ideas... what exactly is a "valid method of making a statement" then?
Talking is not being heard. Writing is not being read. Peacefull actions are not being seen. How better to grab the worlds headlines than by an act of terror?

I would say it is NOT true that the media effects governmental policy but it is certainly true the other way round!

Ah, so we only hear what the goverment wants us to hear? Only news items that are govement approved and filtered... isn't that a popular conspiricy theory?

[Dance Demon]

It's making a statement. The "validity" of the method? It is a valid method if the statement was heard - and the media guaranteed that.
Crashing planes into buildings. Blowing up schools and hospitals. Blowing up busses and hottels. Check-points, embassys, cars. Opening up with automatic gunfire in public places. Shooting someone. Beating them to death. Holding hostages. Hospitalising people. Throwing stones at militants. Shouting abuse. Writing "forbidden" ideas... what exactly is a "valid method of making a statement" then?
Talking is not being heard. Writing is not being read. Peacefull actions are not being seen. How better to grab the worlds headlines than by an act of terror?

Interesting list of terrorist targets there gadget.........notice none of them are military targets. Maybe taking the chance of being shot at by armed service personnel is too risky for cowardly terrorists. Perhaps dying for the cause against a military target doesn't gain as much kudos as killing defenseless innocent people. Its a bit like a school bully only picking on weak people that can't fight back, but never people their own size or bigger. The label doesn't really matter........Geurillas, freedom fighters, terrorists, .....in the end the word that describes them all best is ..COWARDS......

[MartinHarper]

Interesting list of terrorist targets there gadget.........notice none of them are military targets

Read it again?
Buildings and hotels can be military targets, depending on what's in them, or whether you need to deny their use to the enemy. Busses and cars are part of the transportation network, and hence military targets. Embassies are typically military targets, as they are used to gather intelligence and as command-and-control centers. Check-points are military targets. Militants are military targets. People can be, depending.

Perhaps dying for the cause against a military target doesn't gain as much kudos as killing defenseless innocent people.

Judging from what I read, killing a member of the military typically gains considerably more kudos than killing a civilian, but is also considerably harder. Most terrorists attack legitimate military targets when good opportunities arise.

Maybe taking the chance of being shot at by armed service personnel is too risky for cowardly terrorists

The recent incident in Beslan resulted in the hostage-takers being shot at by Russian security forces. The hostage-takers in question realised they were risking capture, torture, or death, and were willing to take that risk. I find it difficult to describe such behaviour as cowardly.

[MartinHarper]

Can anyone give an example of a terrorist attack aimed at (people from) a non-involved country? Genuinely curious.

[Dreadful Scathe]

well, how about publicity?

You can think of reasons why terrorists would attack a non-involved country if you like, but I agree with Martin, I cant think of any instance of this! The terrorists would truly have to believe in "all publicity is good publicity" to attack innocents purely for media exposure!!

The media write the label. The word "Terrorist" is a headline grabber - why say "killed" when you can say "murdered"? why say "shot" when you can say "executed"?

The media is sensationalist its true, this is more true of the tabloids then the broadsheets though. The label was there already - the media use the labels they like, to "present" the news in a certain way with a certain spin.

How long before organised criminals get tagged with the same "terrorist" line? Do the goals of the act actually matter? Was the USA (& UK & EU...) wanting to oust bin-lid an "ideological goal"? Did they use violence? Was it calculated? Is Blair as much a terrorist leader?

Oust Bin Laden ? From power ? where ? He's a terrorist leader surely ? They want to capture him dont they ? I cant see how this would be an idealogical goal if they have firm evidence of his crimes.
Also, "normal" criminals are highly idealist and are unlikely to be tagged as terrorists by any newspaper. They aint in it for the ideals baby

It's making a statement. The "validity" of the method? It is a valid method if the statement was heard - and the media guaranteed that.

I'll give you that one - should not have used the word "valid" there without further explanation. I was asking if we, as "civilised" people in the west, would consider that a reasonable course of action and a reasonable way to make a statement. For me the "statement" is made invalid by the way it was made, just as complaining about a parking fine by beating the traffic warden to death with a tyre iron would be. Because....how can you reason with that - where do you even start ?

Ah, so we only hear what the goverment wants us to hear? Only news items that are govement approved and filtered... isn't that a popular conspiricy theory?

Thats your conspiracy, not mine. Sure, "certainly" and "NOT" make it sound stronger than I intended, but its still a big jump to take the meaning that we "only" get "approved and filtered" news stories.

The government may use the media as a source of information just as we do, but they have other sources. Editors will present news according to government "hints"(or stronger) as well as their own particular bias. Im not suggesting that everything we read and see is government approved at all, but it will be biased and certain things may not even be reported. 2 examples from the Iraq invasion were the "toppling of the Saddam statue" where the reporters on the scene and the footage suggested the whole city was taking part when later pictures showed it was a square full and identified most of them as very pro-US already. Then there was the digitaly altered picture that appeared in the LA Times where the photographer had spliced 2 pictures together to show a US soldier in a very flattering friendly light (http://www.poynter.org/content/conte...w.asp?id=28082). These are ones that have been reported after the fact, what about the ones that are not ? Or the ommissions we never see, for the faceless suffering that goes on in the world that isnt deemed newsworthy.

[Dance Demon]

Read it again?
Buildings and hotels can be military targets, depending on what's in them, or whether you need to deny their use to the enemy. Busses and cars are part of the transportation network, and hence military targets. Embassies are typically military targets, as they are used to gather intelligence and as command-and-control centers. Check-points are military targets. Militants are military targets. People can be, depending.

Judging from what I read, killing a member of the military typically gains considerably more kudos than killing a civilian, but is also considerably harder. Most terrorists attack legitimate military targets when good opportunities arise.

The recent incident in Beslan resulted in the hostage-takers being shot at by Russian security forces. The hostage-takers in question realised they were risking capture, torture, or death, and were willing to take that risk. I find it difficult to describe such behaviour as cowardly.

Busses, Hotels, cars, public buildings are NOT military targets, as they are not specifically for military only use. they are normally used by innocent civilians. The Hostage takers in Beslan used innocent people including hundreds of CHILDREN as human shields. I do not find it difficult to describe this behaviour as COWARDLY......or even HEINOUS......or OUTRAGEOUS........any more than I find it distasteful for any decent human being to find a good reason to defend such action.

[MartinHarper]

Busses, Hotels, cars, public buildings are NOT military targets, as they are not specifically for military only use. They are normally used by innocent civilians.

Something doesn't have to be specifically for military-only use for it to be a possible military target under the Geneva Conventions. In addition, sometimes buses, hotels, cars, and buildings are for military-only use, and in these circumstances they become clear military targets. The Conventions do require that attackers balance the military advantage gained against the risk to civilian life. I don't envy members of our armed forces for having to make that judgement.

I do not find it difficult to describe this behaviour as COWARDLY......or even HEINOUS......or OUTRAGEOUS........any more than I find it distasteful for any decent human being to find a good reason to defend such action.

I have no objection to you describing terrorists as heinous or outrageous, nor do I defend terrorism. It is possible for good people to be cowardly. It is possible for evil people to be daring. It is a shame that the Beslan hostage-takers were not cowards, as then they might have stayed at home and watched TV.

[cerocmetro]

It is possible for good people to be cowardly. It is possible for evil people to be daring. It is a shame that the Beslan hostage-takers were not cowards, as then they might have stayed at home and watched TV.

I am sorry but these people and I struggle to use the word people as it associates me with them are not heros, they are not brave and they are not cowards. They are evil, sick, scum who make me feel ashamed to be a human being. However they are not quite as bad as the garbage who shield them sponsor them and promote them.

And prey tell me, you speak of legitimate targets, what the f*** is a legitimate target when lives are involved. Are you seriously putting a price on lives?

[Dreadful Scathe]

And prey tell me, you speak of legitimate targets, what the f*** is a legitimate target when lives are involved. Are you seriously putting a price on lives?

He didnt speak of any legitimate targets ! He mentioned legitimate military targets, which possibly gets that legitimate label as its...er...used by the military. I didnt pick up any hint of terrorist sentiment in what Martin said - "is he seriously putting a price on lives ?" Where did you get THAT from

[Dance Demon]

I have no objection to you describing terrorists as heinous or outrageous, nor do I defend terrorism. It is possible for good people to be cowardly. It is possible for evil people to be daring. It is a shame that the Beslan hostage-takers were not cowards, as then they might have stayed at home and watched TV.

So .......hiding behind innocent children is not being cowardly...
I agree with Adam...they are evil, sick Cowardly scum. There can never be any justification for what they have done.

[Gadget]

So .......hiding behind innocent children is not being cowardly...

No. It's taking a tactical advantage of a morral and ethical opponent. The "human sheild" option is not taken due to it being the easiest option; but due to it being the most effective protection against enemys who will try to avoid killing "civilians".
You may as well argue that tanks are cowardly weapons; hidden behind layers of armour, ability to target things miles away without being shot at. How about an air strike? How 'cowardly' is that? Pick a target, make sure that nothing can hit your planes, then wipe it out. What about body armour? Do the military, police etc. wear it because they are cowards?
These people have a completley different set of ethics and morals; I assume that to them it's like using a ferrari as a sheild - where your opponent does not want it scratched.

These people are going against a perceived foe who has superior weaponry, superior training, has you outnumbered, infinite resources and the backing of the rest of the world behind them. They face this head-on with a gun, some explosives and their beleif. Cowards?

Haenous, outrageous, soul-less, ruthless, twisted, even 'evil' I will agree with - but the issue of being cowardly does not tally with me.

Adam's point about exactly where they get the weaponry is the more serious to me; I know how to make things go bang with household goods - but these people are using plastique and military hardware. They must be funded and supported from somewhere. Someone must sell them this stuff. Is there a 'sign off sheet' with a tic box: Do you intend to use these materials for any acts of terrorism? |_|yes |_|no

[Dance Demon]

N

These people are going against a perceived foe who has superior weaponry, superior training, has you outnumbered, infinite resources and the backing of the rest of the world behind them. They face this head-on with a gun, some explosives and their beleif. Cowards?

There are such things as Rules of War. The Geneva Convention has already been mentioned. When Allied troops mistakenly kill civilians, everyone is up in arms about "the innocent victims"......"How could this mistake be made" etc etc......Terrorists who carry out carnage against innocent civilians, be it with car bombs, suicide bombers, or taking children hostage & killing them, do not do so by mistake, they do so by choice. This is not warfare, this is wanton destruction & killing of defensless people. If allied troops were to carry out ad hoc bombing of known civilian targets, there would be an outcry.
Hiding behind a wall of sandbags, or in a tank, or a concrete bunker is an acceptable way of hiding from your enemy. Hiding behind innocent children is not. If it had happened at your childrens school......how would you feel about the terrorists then......??

[Gadget]

If it had happened at your children's school......how would you feel about the terrorists then......??

How would I feel? Exactly the same as I do now: Scared that there are people out there who live in such a different and contrasting world to mine. Terrified that they have the power to influence my world in such a direct and devastating manor. And ****ting myself that the people who take up most of my world - my children - may soon be eliminated from it.

What would I do in such a situation? I hope to never find out. I would also hope that I could function well enough to do something useful. Not be blinded by thoughts of haltered, revenge, anger or animosity.

How do you resolve the situation? I don't know. I've not worked out how to neutralise a "dead man's switch" without allowing them to kill someone or release the mechanism. Especially if the explosives are on them.
Possibly negotiate - But if they are nuts, what can you negotiate? "OK we will free the rebels - release the hostages." "NO - release out people first!" "Well, how about you release some of the hostages?" "No - you realise some of our people!" etceteras.
Is releasing a couple more "terrorists" worth the lives of a school of children? What happens once they are released? Just catch them again? Before or after they blow up another couple of busses of children? Why won't the terrorists just blow up the school after getting what they want?

There are such things as Rules of War. The Geneva Convention has already been mentioned.

Ha! The Geneva Convention is an international treaty that only holds true for those countries that signed it. The Terrorists are opposed to their own country and do not acknowledge their rule - why should they pay attention to the Geneva Convention?
The "rules of war"?? How about Sun Tzu's version? To declare a "war on terror" is a piece of nonsense - it implies that both sides acknowledge and agree to keep to these 'rules'. By declaring a "war on terror", all you are doing is saying "we will play 'fair'". You need something to target for a war. You need objectives that can be conquered and land that can be held. You need something to fight.
You're right; This is not warfare, this is wanton destruction & killing of defenceless people. We have said it's war. They have not.

Land mines do not distinguish between a peasants foot and a soldiers. Hand grenades do not just blow up armed targets. Missiles do not limit devastation to the "baddie's" lair. A spray of bullets does not only seek out the ones with guns. By declaring "war", you are also declaring that there will be "casualties of war": militarily acceptable numbers of civilian casualties.